TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 391X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any finding on the status of the appellant, except making an averment to the effect that the appellant is a ‘Technocrat’. This finding appears to be unsupported by evidence and transfer of technical know how, brand name, etc. is covered by intellectual property right services w.e.f. 10.09.2004 while the disputed period is 2001-2003. thus there will be waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the amounts. - ST/233/2008 - S/364/CSTB/WZB/2009/C-II - Dated:- 13-8-2009 - P.G. CHACKO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND A.K. SRIVASTAVA, TECHNICAL MEMBER Mayur Shroff for the Appellant. R.K. Mahajan for the Respondent. ORDER P.G. Chacko, Judicial Member - After examining the records and hearing both sides, we note that, in adju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . - CESTAT) and a line of other decisions including CCE v. M.R.F. Ltd. 2005 (179) ELT 472/1 STT 80 (Chennai - CESTAT). The point emerging from the cited decisions is that service tax was not leviable prior to 10-9-2004 on royalty for transfer of technical know-how, etc., and that the same could be taxed only under the heading 'Intellectual Property Right Service' with effect from 10-9-2004. On this basis the learned counsel has claimed prima facie case. 3. The learned JCDR refers to a subsequent agreement entered into between the appellant and M/s. DTPL and submits that there is no mention, in this agreement, of any transfer of formulae or formulations between the appellant and M/s. DTPL. It is submitted that, obviously, the appellant was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of service tax. The judicial authorities are also unanimous on the point that such transactions would not be exigible to service tax under any other heading prior to 10-9-2004. The relevant agreement also does not disclose any material in support of the Commissioner's finding. We have also noted that the learned Commissioner chose to impose a penalty on the appellant under section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 through corrigendum. Other changes were also sought to be made through the corrigendum. This action is not free from blame. 6. The appellant has made out prima facie case against the demand of service tax raised under the head 'Scientific or Technical Consultancy Service' for the period of dispute as also against the penalties. There ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
